How Public is Scientific Knowledge?

Charles G. Roland Mayo Clinic

Abstract

Both science and the public can be harmed by premature or inaccurate publicity. Physicians' concern centers on the damaging effects of inaccuracy and sensationalism and on the hazards of invasion of privacy. Balancing these concerns is a legitimate desire by the public to know about scientific progress. Medicine has fairly specific ethical guidelines for physicians' conduct in this area; an analogous code for science writers might help to control the occasional abuses of trust by these writers. At the same time physicians must become more skillful in communicating information.

Journal
Journal of Technical Writing and Communication
Published
1971-10-01
DOI
10.2190/7cvk-v610-twqu-gekn
CompPile
Search in CompPile ↗
Open Access
Closed
Export

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (1)

  1. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication

References (14)

  1. Dubos R. cited by A. Macleish, The Great American Frustration, Saturday Review, pp. 13–16, July 13, 1968.
  2. “Meaning Lost in Paraphrase,” Leader-Post, Regina, June 23, 1962.
  3. Pierce H. W. “Scientists Widen Gap with Public,” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, May 20, 1967.
  4. The Quill
  5. 10.1021/ed038p415
Show all 14 →
  1. Nature, London
  2. 10.1038/221632a0
  3. 10.1038/2251082a0
  4. 10.1126/science.108.2792.1
  5. Daedalus
  6. Chappell F., Physicians, Public Pronouncements and the Press: Do We Need New Ground Rules? Read before Southw…
  7. Brucker H., A Conscience for the Press, Saturday Review, pp. 59–61, May 9, 1970.
  8. Nicholas J. cited by J. Huber, “Jet Regulars Hope for Restful Sunday,” The Miami News, November 30, 1968.
  9. Mayo Clin. Proc.